[PS3] Uncharted 2

Silent_Buddha said:
The problem with that quote is that he's still assuming at least some ROI on his investment.

Let's put it another way.

If someone had asked him if he had a choice on working on a game that would make money, whether it's 1 dollar or 1 millions dollars but doesn't give him as much creative freedom...

OR...

He could go out and create his vision but end up losing money to the extent that he would lose his business/house/personal holdings/etc...

Which do you think he would choose?

And that's why games generally only get as much money budgeted as someone is willing to put forth as a gamble that it "might" succeed and that they "might" see a return on their investment...

With that money the Devs then have to prioritize how much time is spent on X feature. How much time is spent on Y art asset. Should they implement M feature in the game or should they instead more fully develope N feature in the game.

If you do not do those very basic things, you end up with Daikatana. Or a neverending dev cycle like Duke Nukem' 4ever.

Everything comes down to money.

That's why even the most artistic game dev's will have a Producer on board. That Producer is there to try to keep things focused so that the game stays within budget (money). They are usually the ones to tell the dev, "Ok bub, it's time to start cutting things because we're going to run out of money before you can finish this game with the current set of features/locations/art assets/whatever."

Everything works this way. Games, Film, TV, Research and Developement, Business ventures, etc...

It's all about money. What can you do with the money you have available and even more importantly, in the end will you make more money than you spent...

If they don't make more money than spent, then the business/film franchies/game franchise/promising research for a new drug/etc. all go bye bye...

Regards,
SB
Click to expand...

It's still not as simple as that. You're describing it as black and white - it isn't. They want to be successful and budget conscious as long it doesn't cost them their creative freedom.
 
Silent_Buddha said:
That's why even the most artistic game dev's will have a Producer on board.
Click to expand...
There was a thread here quite a while ago quoting Naughty Dog as saying they didn't need a producer, and developers here chimmied in whether they agreed or not. But a producer isn't seen as vital to all devs, and some prefer to just go with their creative flair to get the job done. It's not as if budgetting is an exact science and carefully managed games (or other projects) never end up costing more than originally expected, so why lock yourself into thinking in dollars with that inevitable associated uncertainty, when 'winging it' offers a more relaxed decision making process for all its uncertainty? There are arguments for and against, with no absolute answers. Some developers are inevitably going to make some decisions without any regard for the dollar implications and although those decisions can be mapped onto a dollar-value economics model, I don't think even on a subconcious level that the economic implications are considered. For example, I think a lot of overall game concepts are conceived without a market appraisal but instead, the game the developer has always wanted to make. I doubt Q-Games chose to produce PixelJunk Eden because they determined there was a high demand for it, nor ThatGameCompany when they made Flower.

It's all about money. What can you do with the money you have available and even more importantly, in the end will you make more money than you spent...
Click to expand...
Not always. I doubt the reasons to limit Eden to three players instead of allowing for 5 or 7 had anything to do with money, but the gameplay experience. They decided 7 players wasn't fun. One could argue that Q-Games felt the 7 player experience was too muddled which would have presented a poorer experience of the game and thus adversely affect sales, but IMO that would be impressing the model artificially on the situation.

Or putting it another way, do you think the amount of leaves on a tree or the amount of dirt on a wall is determined by a dollar value ROI consideration? There's a threshold where some decisions will have huge impact on earnings and need careful consideration, and other decisions that aren't that important and can be left to creative thinking. I think splitscreen is between the two extremes such that some developers will view it from an economic perspective and others from a creative perspective.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Not always. I doubt the reasons to limit Eden to three players instead of allowing for 5 or 7 had anything to do with money, but the gameplay experience. They decided 7 players wasn't fun. One could argue that Q-Games felt the 7 player experience was too muddled which would have presented a poorer experience of the game and thus adversely affect sales, but IMO that would be impressing the model artificially on the situation.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, the feature is already implemented into the game an it's only a matter of tweaking the numbers. It isn't like there is additionaly money required in order to implement 3 versus 7 players.

Or putting it another way, do you think the amount of leaves on a tree or the amount of dirt on a wall is determined by a dollar value ROI consideration? There's a threshold where some decisions will have huge impact on earnings and need careful consideration, and other decisions that aren't that important and can be left to creative thinking. I think splitscreen is between the two extremes such that some developers will view it from an economic perspective and others from a creative perspective.
Click to expand...

Yes, if the investment required is more than the budget would allow you'd get less leaves on a tree or less detailed textures on a wall. I'm sure Sigil with Vanguard could have done with some of the funds that they used to implement the best/most realistic tree's available in any game. In the end the game was killed due to lack of funding to actually finish the game. Much less resolve many game stopping bugs before launch.

Yes, it obviously isn't the ONLY consideration, but it's something that must be taken into account when doing anything that requires an investment in time/tools/labor/etc...

The console gaming and PC gaming scene are littered with numerous developers that failed due to having a vision that did not fit their budget.

For example would KOTOR 2 have been a better game if they had pared down their vision to more realistically reflect how much budget they actually had for the game? Or cut a little detail/labor from X item? Would a finished but slightly less detailed game have been better? Maybe if they could have cut Y feature that free'd up more money and thus allowed them to apply it towards finishing the game...

We'll never know since they ran out of money in pursuing their vision for the game... However, at least it was good enough to keep them in business.

Having a vision is all well and good if you can afford to finish it.

But at least Obsidian has been successful enough to keep going despite often hitting the budget wall before actually being able to finish their vision for a game. Looking Glass (one of my favorite devs of all time) wasn't so fortunate. /sigh...

Regards,
SB
 
Silent_Buddha said:
The console gaming and PC gaming scene are littered with numerous developers that failed due to having a vision that did not fit their budget.
Click to expand...
This reasoning is only a valid conclusion if all the games that were successes did away with artistic vision in favour of economic considerations. Naughty Dog suggests otherwise. I don't think artistic vision nor economic analysis can determine what will or will not be a successful product. It's all educated guesswork.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_en_ot/us_games_uncharted2_4

capt.f46c1b7088e34023b0a65fcebc493f7f.games_unchartered_2_nyet630.jpg


It comes from a cutscene of uncharted 2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The character model and lighting in Uncharted 2 are simply incredible, the graphics seemed improved even further than last time I checked.
 
RenegadeRocks said:
only in MP, not confirmed for campaign.
Click to expand...

:cry: I thought the interview was only talking about Uncharted 2, but now that I had another look they are constantly switching between talking about Uncharted Drake's Fortune and Uncharted 2.

But there is still hope that she'll be in Uncharted 2.:D
 
When playing MP, there are two teams, the good side of Drake , Chloe ,Sully,Elena and a guy in a hat. the other team is of those mercenaries. They just took 5 characters from the good side to make that team. Elena or might not appear in SP, is what is told. I think even if she comes in, it will be a guest appearance, just to make Drake a little uncomfortable in front of Chloe :) !
 
Whoa

"Thank you for subscribing to Qore(TM): Presented by the
PlayStation(R)Network.

Here is your voucher code for the Multiplayer Beta Test for UNCHARTED 2:
Among Thieves(TM). The Beta runs from 6/3/09 to 6/28/09 only.
Don't miss out!"


nono.. thank YOU for this invitation :)
 
Just saw the newer build footage too and WOW, the game looked drop dead gorgeous. It's the same level from that leaked November build but with improvements such as object based motion blur, better lighting from explosions and all those flags hanging above were waving now. I might be missing out on some other things but I sure love what I just saw. Bring on the E3 I say:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shortbread
Uncharted: The Nathan Drake Collection
14 15 16
Replies
317
Views
43K
DieH@rd
D
Back
Top